Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

interests as a church, than is commonly imagined. I do not however, of course, expect this opinion to go for any thing, except so far as it may be sustained by solid reasons.

Having, in a separate volume, published nearly two years ago, treated at large of the office of the ruling elder, as founded in Apostolic usage, and as essential to the intelligent, tranquil, and orderly government of the church, I shall not dwell particularly on that subject at present; but shall confine myself chiefly to the importance of adhering to that system of rules and regulations, which, as a body, we have adopted, and under which we have solemnly stipulated to God and to one another that we will walk together.

con

I need not say to those who are in the habit of making the Bible their guide, that order is one of the first laws of Christ's kingdom. "Let all things be done decently and in order," is his inspired command. Where no order is, there is " fusion and every evil work." As there can be neither peace nor comfort in a particular church where the members do not adhere to rule, and sacredly consult the feelings and edification of each other; so there can be no unity or true Christian communion among churches, which, while they profess to be one, do not "speak the same thing;" will not "walk by the same rule;" and insist on consulting their private convenience or inclination alone. The mischiefs of such a course I cannot attempt to enumerate. It interferes with armony and edification to a degree of which no one can estimate the extent, or see the end. The members of a church session, or of a Presbytery, when, in a particular case, they confessedly go counter to the published rules of the Presbyterian Church, may imagine that very little, if any, evil can possibly result from the course adopted. But, the truth is, they form a part of a great body which is one, all the several branches or members of which are to be considered as under the same regulating principles. Whenever, therefore, they allow themselve to be guilty of any disorderly proceeding, they commence a derangement of the machinery, which, for aught they can tell, may extend a disturbing impulse to the remotest members of the body with which they are connected. It may be compared to the operation of a single fulsehood uttered in an orderly and tranquil neighbourgood. It is not, perhaps, intended, and it may not seem possible, that it should do much harm. But it has gone forth. The mischiefs which it has generated may spread like a cancer. It may lead to a hundred falsehoods, and a hundred quarrels. "Behold how great

a matter a little fire kindleth!" The peace of many families may be destroyed by it. A happy church may be torn in pieces by it. Nay, it may create evils of which a whole generation may not witness the entire removal.

But perhaps it will be said, that a machinery so constructed, and so liable to be deranged by disorder in a single part or branch, had better be laid aside. That it were wiser to adopt the simple congregational plan, as it exists in Massachusetts in which each particular church is independent of every other church; and in which there is no delegated body representing all the churches; empowered to review the proceedings of the whole; to receive appeals from the aggrieved; and to bind all together as one church. This plan allows each church to take its own course in every thing, without yielding to any other body the power to inspect or re-judge its proceedings. I am persuaded that whoever examines this plan, with an impartial mind, will find it liable to radical objections. It is contrary to Apostolical example; for in Acts xv. we find an account of the Synod of Jerusalem, in which questions were authoritatively decided for the whole Christian body; and from which "decrees" were sent down to all the churches to be sacredly observed. It is contrary to the practice of the church in the ages immediately after the Apostles; for we find, repeatedly, in the records of those ages, examples of judgments passed, and decrees published at Synodical meetings, which were intended to bind all the churches within a particular kingdom or district. It is in the highest degree unfriendly both to the unity and purity of the church and it would not be difficult to show, that, where this Independent system prevails, some of the most important means of promoting the harmony, cooperation and health of the churches are essentially wanting; and that for some of the worst evils to which an assemblage of neighbouring churches of the same denomination are exposed, there is neither prevention nor cure.

But I may not be an impartial judge. I will, therefore, request your attention to some remarks of a writer, who may perhaps, be more unprejudiced; who speaks in the pages of the New Haven Spectator, a journal which has not always appeared over partial to the Presbyterian form of church government. The writer in question, himself a congregationalist, and referring particularly to the congregationalism of Massachusetts, speaks thus

"When an individual church, in any town or parish, possesses the power of Christian discipline, even to the exclusion of offenders, and possesses the same power to discipline its, Pastor,

as any other member; the government is denominated strictly congregational. And be the church ever so few in number, or ever so much at variance among themselves, there is no remedy, except it come from themselves. They may contend for years, two against two, or three against three, without a prospect of peace. Being plunged deep in difficulty, the parties sometimes consent to a mutual council. A venerable council is convened, consisting (in many cases) of more and wiser men than the whole church that called them and they come from out of the reach of every bias or prejudice. They are considered, by all parties, as men of talents, and of enlarged views; men of integrity and ardent piety. They hear and labour night and day with many tears and prayers. They make out a result, which is communicated with much solemn advice and exhortation. But, unfortunately for both, and all parties, this venerable council, the best situated and qualified of all men to hear and judge and decide, is totally void of power. The result goes to the church, and there it is rejected. The council retire with grief and mortification, leaving the church in a worse predicament than they found them. Now they are ripe for an ex parte council; and when and how will the troubles end? Nothing can safely be decided.

"If, instead of multiplying councils, evidently selected for party purposes, the churches would unite, and covenant together to become one body, of many members, instead of many bodies of few members; the work of discipline would be easy, correct, and efficacious; and this was exactly the form of all the apostolical churches. The church of Jerusalem consisted of one body and many members. It consisted of above five thousand men; how many women and children we know not. But they were all one body, under the pastoral care of many elders. Such were all the apostolical churches. They were one united body, under the care of a suitable number of elders, called the Presbytery. The church in every city or district was a completely organized Consociation. This venerable body of elders, together with delegates from all the churches, has always possessed the right of self-government; for this is the legitimate body of Christ, consisting of all the saints, with the bishops and deacons. To them, in the apostolic ages, were the difficult cases referred, by the minor churches, for a final decision. They were the hurch, in the highest sense of the word.

"Let us consider some of the benefits of this union of churches. The benefits are realized chiefly by the brethren

[ocr errors]

of the churches, rather than by their pastors and elders. It brings the brethren out of obscurity. It brings them forward one after another, to attend to the most important and interesting discussions, both of a doctrinal and practical nature. It brings the churches to deliberate, by their delegates, and Co-operate with their pastors, and give their votes on the most important questions. Delegates of the churches, when they return from meetings of the consociation, realize that they have been attending a most excellent and profitable school; and with pleasure communicate to their brethren what they have learned in the consociation; so that information circulates through the whole body of churches.

"We notice another benefit of this union; and that is, that vacant churches derive great advantages from their connexion with the consociation. Being destitute of ministers and spiri. tual guides of their own, they have a claim on any or all the ministers in the connexion, for that aid, direction, and fatherly care, by which they are kept from going astray, and are enabled to obtain faithful ministers of the Gospel. It is no small privilege to have the aid and assistance of those ministers who are in the closest bonds of union and fellowship. The vacancy of churches is, in a great measure, filled by the union of pastors and churches in the vicinity. The pastors, by this union, become like pastors of the apostolical churches: fellow-labourers, workers together, fellowhelpers, and fellow-servants of the Lord Jesus Christ.

"But there are still greater benefits resulting from the consociation of the churches. It is a great check to the progress of prevailing errors and heresies. If the consociation is, as it most certainly ought to be, a standing council for the examination and ordination of ministers within their own limits; there will be but little danger of the introduction of heretics into the sacred office. Instances are very rare, if any have occurred, in which heretics of any name have gained an establishment in the midst of an harmonious consociation. But where no bond of union exists in the churches, there is a struggle between the advocates for the various systems of religion. Unitarians and Universalists claim the congregational principle, and introduce their disciples almost imperceptibly into our vacant congregations.

"What is the form of church government in Masachussetts? It is extinct. There is not a shadow of union of one church with another. Instead of union and co-operation, we stand aloof, and cultivate jealousies and party feelings against each

other. Being rarely called together to act in concert, as sister churches, we make but very little accquaintance with Christians beyond the narrow limits of our own parishes. This shameful ignorance of our brethren in Christ, and even of the officers and leading members of his church, ought not so to be.' We ought to be intimately acquainted with our bre thren, even at a distance. But how can this acquaintance exist, so long as we utterly refuse to associate, or to cultivate any bonds of Christian union whatsoever? It cannot take place. We must remain strangers and aliens, for want of some bond of union.

"There is, in fact, but one alternative. The churches in this State (Massachusetts) must unite-must organize themselves in union with their pastors for mutual acquaintance, improvement, good fellowship, and discipline; or they must go to ruin. It is as absurd and unscriptural for independent churches to set up for independence of the united body of the church, as for individual towns to set up for the independence of the state or nation. Order, harmony, and peace cannot be preserved and promoted, without a more extensive union than that of a few individuals, or individual bodies. From a careful review of the Scriptures on this subject, we have found, that churches established by the Apostles were composed of a large number of ministers, with their individual churches. These, in cordial union, fellowship, and co-operation, composed what we call a consociation. And from the days of the Apostles to this day, the orthodox churches have been nearly on the same ground. Their ecclesiastical judicatories have been of the nature, and have had the effects of a consociation of the churches.'

[ocr errors]

These remarks are pointed and excellent. And, I may add, that every word which the author has written in favour of what he calls the "consociation of churches," applies with equal force in support of the Presbyterian form of church government. The plan, of consociation, as it exists in Connecticut, which the writer, no doubt, had in his eye, is neither less nor more than Presbyterianism as far as it goes. And, indeed, the writer frankly acknowledges that, in the apostolic age, that united body of churches and pastors, not only for giving advice, but for the exercise of ecclesiastical authority over all the churches represented, and for the restoration of which he pleads, was called a "Presbytery." The advantages of this system in Connecticut have been equally indubitable and sig

[ocr errors]

Christian Spectator, Vol. III. p. 460-463.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »